Biggest Crime and it's punishment - Page 14

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

Well, there are classic offenders and then there are virtual offenders. It's not up to me to pour through every single message of your defendant. My case will have an opening statement and if someone is wrongfully accused then they could counter sue me. From what I know, they will see if the nature of conduct is situational or chronic, progression of activity is gradual or immediate, if the dialogue is explicit or disguised and if their post-offensive moves are remorseful or not.

I am not sure how you interpret what you interpret. I don't think I care and neither should you, in how I do it. But since this is DM, I could shed a little light on how I do it.

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

The sentence, "The man who is committing rape perhaps has more hormones than those moral people who manage to live with one woman for their whole life thinking that they are moral" to me is how a virtual offender would first mockingly decry the ones who are not committing rapes and who are loyal and faithful to their spouses. That would be your defendant's opening line.

The tone is in your mind. Written words don't come with tones. You are taking it as mocking. Whereas his words taken simply would mean, people who we think are moral, lives with one woman for their whole life and have less hormones than a rapist.

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

The sentence "A man(women) with more hormones will need more women(men)... so will be the case with a woman.... It is not a question of morality, it is a question of biology" is justification towards rape, bad grammar notwithstanding.

It's not a justification of rape, as he is simply talking about multiple partners; multiple partners doesn't equate to rape. It's a novel approach towards understanding the causes that makes someone to have multiple partners. He is trying to view it more as a hormonal imbalance.

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

The sentence "A man who commits rape needs all our sympathy, needs a certain operation in which his extra hormones are removed, and he will cool down, calm down." is how your defendant would like to plead guilty after the act is committed but note that the defense was being readied even before the act is committed.

He is not pleading guilty. He has not done any crime. He feels rapists should undergo treatment and deserve our sympathy (support) for his treatment (hormone therapy) which will make him healthy. It's his personal feeling or opinion which he wrote over here.

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

The sentence "To punish him is simply an exercise in stupidity" would be the defendant's closing statement.

It's his belief that punishment will not be able to change a rapist's behaviour and a rapist's behaviour can only be changed if the rapist undergoes hormone therapy.

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

I am not a behavioral analysis expert; I would leave that to the professionals. But sounds like, the defendant has a weak case, free speech not withstanding.

Like I said, I might not have much going in favor of me. But that's not going to deter me in pursuing what I believe in. I appreciate the education in the first amendment, but unless your defendant(s) show remorse, I am pressing forward.

Originally posted by: Believe

...

I strongly believe there is nobody in the world who is a criminal... everybody is sick, and needs sympathy and a scientific cure, and most of your crimes will disappear......!😊

If you have stated this (your stance) clearly in the very beginning before all this hoopla began, all these accusations and a few pages from this thread could have been toned down. It would have also saved some people their time and some people from being embarrassed.
If you were accused of what you did not mean - why didn't you protest it instead of joking around even more?

Your stance on rehabilitating or curing criminals (or as you call them 'sick people') isn't anything new. It is the way you expressed your views which caused the uproar here.

@Souro

Mister. K interpreted the posts in one way, you read it in a different way. This is debate Mansion and you both can definitely debate on length about what a post construes.

In the end however, US residents like Mister. K have the opportunity to report anything that they feel to be an internet crime. He will submit the posts and why he feels they are online criminal activity. The authorities will review, if they feel it warrants merit they will pursue, if it does not warrant merit they will merely file and ignore it. What you, me or anyone thinks of the situation will ultimately be irrelevant to the official report with US authorities. It will be completely up to the investigators. I'm sure they actually have more serious crimes they focus on, rather than what people say on IF. However, it is nice that if by a remote possibility there actually is an investigation – Vinu can count on you for support and explanation.

I'd actually be more worried about online activities reaching the workplace through any channel. Recently our local Wal-Mart fired a bunch of workers for some comments they made on some chat site. It is all rumor mill now, so I don't know much – but apparently it was harmless – but just that they used the 'n' word a lot. But in this case I think it was a disgruntled coworker reporting. It keeps popping up all over on the news every now and then of people being fired over something that they thought was just untraceable and perhaps innocent activities online. Not sure how other countries are – but US companies take things very seriously and extremely and the US law backs their decisions in these matters (although there are many pending privacy disputes). So anyone who resides in the USA or does business with US companies should definitely be ultra careful online.

I'm very un pc at times and probably not as careful as I should be either. So far so good, luckily.

Originally posted by: souro

The tone is in your mind. Written words don't come with tones. You are taking it as mocking. Whereas his words taken simply would mean...

I completely disagree that writings don't possess a tone.

"You are a genius 😉" is sneering and sarcastic. "You are a genius 👏" is honest admiration. The wordings in both phrases are the same.

I omitted the winks and the LOLs when I quoted him. I was under the impression that you are familiar with what's been said in the previous pages and with most of his 18000+ messages. If you are not, that's OK. I am and I thus formed an opinion.

Sometimes you can't take the words at just the face value. The overall context and the person's background has to be kept in perspective. Me saying I am going to nuke this country up, in anger, is not the same as Osama Bin Laden saying that.

Originally posted by: souro

It's not a justification of rape, as he is simply talking about multiple partners; multiple partners doesn't equate to rape. It's a novel approach towards understanding the causes that makes someone to have multiple partners. He is trying to view it more as a hormonal imbalance.

I am assuming you are not arguing just for arguments' sake.

The following conclusions are from your defendant's point of view.
a) "The man who is committing rape perhaps has more hormones"
b) "A man with more hormones will need more women"
c) "it is a question of biology"
d) hence rape is ____________

I intentionally left option d blank. I filled it as justification. It's up to you what you fill it with. Your interpretation need not match my interpretation. If it does, then there is no need for lawyers and attorneys in any country.

Originally posted by: souro

He is not pleading guilty. He has not done any crime.

😊

I didn't say he went ahead and did it. I was saying that's how he would plead if he were to do it today. And I was saying he already has his defense ready. To me, it looked like he was summoning up courage and looking for someone to agree with him.

Originally posted by: Believe

Originally posted by: Ice-Thinker

One very big crime is to break ones heart beyond repair.

here's the problem with what you're saying K and i mean this well.

going the way u recommend, where are we goin next? should we start reporting people for nazi tendencies, for openly sympathising wtih taliban or terrorists, cursing the US here, for ridiculing president obama in what may be pretty dangerous terms? should we report their peccadilloes/ indiscretions/ time spent on the net/ their sexually-orineted posts to their husbands, to the feds, to the employers? should we point out the strong violent tendencies expressed in various anti-abortion stance. you know what, i am starting to feel scared they might blow up abortion clincs when they done thinking their thoughts, writing their words, feeling their words.

one could also say that folks who're bent on turning every topic into a life-and-death thread have manic depressive suicidal/ homicidal tendencies. if you wanted to run with it, you could even say they remind one of the fellow who blew up the fort. scary stuff. slippery path.

from the little i know of you folks, i think you all are decent people deep down. folks might say things that others might consider very outlandish at times, they're trying to entertain and push boundaries, occasionally screwing up (who doesnt?). some folks dont even know how to express themselves well. i'd chalk it up to that rather than make monsters outa people every chance we get.